We need to talk about CV turrets

Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by RadElert_007, Sep 4, 2017.

  1. RadElert_007

    RadElert_007 Ensign

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    11
    TLDR The artificial balancing against CVs is counter-intuitive, the inability for CVs to use all but the two weakest CVs in atmosphere (where 90% of gameplay occurs) reduces CVs to boring transport roles and mobile bases.

    Have a rant from me to you <3

    Constructive comments are appreciated, non-constructive replies will be reported to moderation.


    Capital Vessels Suck at the moment, anyone with a clue should know this. Currently CV weapons are restricted to space with only the two weakest turrets being usable in atmosphere. From my point of view this is a terrible nerf to CVs that reduce their role to Transportation and Mobile bases, using CVs for POI clearing or PvP is not viable.

    Here are the key problems with CVs at the moment.

    • CVs are limited to the two weakest turrets while in atmosphere, which is where 99% of all PvE and PvP gameplay takes place
    • These two weapons are terrible, they are barley even effective against NPC mobs, let alone POIs or PvP targets.
    • In spite of this, the developers have no problem with players using cheaper more viable HVs and CVs with the same turrets as CVs in atmosphere. All HV equivilents of CV turrets can be fired in atmosphere and all the SV nose gun equivilents of CV noseguns can be fired in atmosphere.
    • 99% of all gameplay both PvE and PvP takes place on planets, which reduces CVs to transport and mobile base roles.
    • The only viable use of a CV is CV vs CV combat in space, which is extremely rare and cannot be forced.

    From my personal point of view, this needs to change.

    Weapon nerfs aside, CVs are already behind HVs and SVs (keep in mind HV turrets and SV noseguns of the same type as the ones on CVs can be used in planets) in the following aspects.

    • Expensive to spawn, cost a shittone to build and repair
    • Expensive to maintain, fuel use on any decent sized CV is huge
    • They are huge targets, impossible to miss by any weapon unless the pilot doesn't have a clue
    • They are slow as shit, they do not have the ability to retreat from fire or simply avoid damage using speed like SVs and HVs do

    But the weapon nerfs are over the top, they need to go if CVs are ever to be viable outside of being stuck in transporation and mobile base roles.

    If the damage from weapons is the problem, plenty of solutions exist other then simply nerfing CV turrets to the point of making them no viable for POI clearing or PvP.

    Some examples include.

    • Making CV weapons more affected by range decreases associated in being in atmosphere (affected more than HV/SV weapons)
    • Make ammunition production more expensive
    • Simple damage reductions in atmosphere
    • Decrease tracking speed on the more powerfull CV turrets (the speed they can aim their barrel at a moving target)
    • Increase the size of the CV weapons, making them easier to hit

    Any one these solutions and a lot more can be used if CV turrets are too powerfull, but making CV turrets useless in the area where 90% of all gameplay in both PvE and PvP occurs is over the top.

    I propse the develops consider some of the solutions above as opposed to simply disabling CV turrets outright.

    Questions, comments, smartass remarks?
     
    #1
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2017
    IanX and Nogitsune like this.
  2. Frankyln

    Frankyln Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    1,444
    Personally I Would rather it be like it was originally.
    CV can't land on planets.

    Bases should be king.
    SV and HV should only be able to destroy external defenses.
    You would need to do an on foot assault to capture a base or activate its self destruct system.

    CV should be Fighting CV in space.
    Even a CV fighting a BA in space should see the BA as king.

    Unfortunately the Factory undermines everything.
     
    #2
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2017
    Neal, ☣.C.H.U.D.☣ and IanX like this.
  3. Hummel-o-War

    Hummel-o-War Administrator
    Staff Member Community Manager

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2015
    Messages:
    4,281
    Likes Received:
    5,765
    Fair point @OP. The balance for CV needs still to be found and indeed this is a globa balancing problem as a CV that has the same capabilities as a BA is always superior on a planet as it can move! Which is a problem in itself, as this "death from above" may be a result, but is not a good gameplay.
    Wouldn't this just keep the issue the same? We would still need to make difference between CV weapons and BA weapons...which then would not change anything in the relation and the CV being superior. At least as long as BA and CV basically share the same range of weapons.

    Maybe a differentiation of the weapon layout between BA and CV would be more helpful?

    Example: BA gets much stronger Anti-CV capabilities (also for Space-BA) that can take down a large and slower moving CV in a few hits, but are not effective against a HV or SV (Because they can evade it and Anti-Air won't track HVs/ground vehicles anymore). Like a Anti-CV large rocket or beam lasers...not just a beefed up Flak.

    CV gets more weapons / turret changes in terms of being more effective against SV, but less vs. BA and HV. (Tracking-Anti-Air weapons like lock-on Missiles and fast-firing more-flak-style Plasma/Laser/Bullets guns...like Aircraft Carriers have..dealing less damage per projectile but spraying a lot of them). Maybe CV gets a strong "fixed beam weapon" that you need to load up and align with the target. So you get a one-hit on a Base, but in the meantime this base will blast some holes in your hull. Artillery should then be removed as a "Siege weapon".

    What do you thing of this approach?
     
    #3
  4. Nogitsune

    Nogitsune Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2017
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    145
    My understanding is that the main reason to limit the number of available weapons per type, is the firing latency issue (slightly separate issue from this). If we can assume that massive clumps of bases are generally not involved in the combat - while it's entirely possible to bring 5 vs 5 CVs into combat - then it shouldn't be a big problem to f.ex. double the number of available guns per type for bases, or perhaps increase the number of heavy hitters like artillery even further.

    Or specialized anti-CV, sure.. that's an option too.. and would give less grief for SV/HV. Either way I'm totally in agreement with OP that neutering the CV weaponry on gravity is... not fun. My current solution on my own game was to simply attach BA weapons on the CV, but I'd rather there be a more 'mainstream' solution for this.

    I'll have to add though - as long as lost blocks can't be repaired, but only rebuilt, on CVs, they are not viable for combat anyway.. so along with weapons, the repair issue is even more pressing - it applies to all vehicles (and for bases too, really). It's pretty much keeping me from playing more at the moment until it's resolved.
     
    #4
    IanX likes this.
  5. RadElert_007

    RadElert_007 Ensign

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    11
    I have never been one for the typical "rock, paper, scissors" when it comes to balancing different classes of units in any game. It feel lazy and horribly artificial. Making BA's a hardcounter to CVs but not much else is what I would rather avoid.

    Although dedicated "Anti-CV weapons" could be something to consider, they would need a lot of balancing to ensure they are not blatantly overpowered but thats something.


    I would say no to that because with my proposals for alternatives you can at least use them, unlike now where CVs are restricted to the two weakest turrets in areas where 90% of PvE and PvP gameplay occurs.

    I do however agree with your point regarding BA's

    They definetly need be the "strongest" in terms of defensive and damage capabilities, from my personal prespective a BA should serve as a "proper headquaters" while a mobile base CV should be seen a "forward ops base" as opposed to just a "mobile headquaters"

    Dedicated Anti-SV weapons is a good idea but making CVs only good against SVs is the kind of "rock, paper, scissors" balance I would rather avoid.

    I do not believe CVs should have the same firepower as a BA but it should not be restricted the role of "Anti SV boat"

    Can you elaborate on this?


    If that was the intent, they would have done similar to HVs and BAs as well.

    I would like more options for repair then a multi tool tbh.

    Perhaps BAs could get a shipyard to repair CVs and SVs that are "docked" to it and CVs could perhaps get a "fighter bay repair system" that could repair docked SVs

    :thinking:
     
    #5
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2017
  6. Frankyln

    Frankyln Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    1,444
    One option that could be done is limit CV/HV/SV/BA armour. There would need to be a distinction between hull blocks and interior blocks
    (Waiting to be slapped as this will kill all Blueprints)
    • SV/HV 1 layer deep
    • Cv 2 layer deep
    • BA 4 layers Deep
    This would also need weapon/ammo balancing.
    Splash damage shock wave would also need fixing.
    Balancing weapon damage/ammo vs armor should be easier. Armor thickness could be a setting

    In the end this is not a complete solution. It is only allowing for weapon/ammo vs armor balancing.

    --------------

    I would actually change the whole combat mechanics.

    BA armor blocks are industructable to CV/HV/SV weapons. This means their outer defences can be killed only. Once the base is neutralized it can be taken on foot or it can be destroyed by anti BA weapons.
    By making CV slow and less nimble would make it more advantageous to attack bases with SV/HV.
    BA should have supieor range an firepower vs cv/SV/hv.

    Anti base weapons would be ineffective if the BA weapon system are functioning

    CV armor blocks are industructable to most HV/SV weapons except for an anti-CV torpedo.
    This means SV can disable CV weapons and thrusters (and shield if implemented). The CV can be taken over by boarding parties after.

    It can also be destroyed via torpedoes. These are slow and easy to destroy if a cv weapons system are active making SV needed to take out the CVweapons first. Anti cv weapons would be huge. Basically a cv weapon mounted to an SV. This would also mean it can't use the ammo boxes designed for SV munitions making it hard to reload.( physical reload only. No control panel) or the weapon can't be reloaded at all.

    An SV can't destroy a CV simply but it can disable and run away or torpedo.

    This would also make CV to CV the more common pair up.
     
    #6
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2017
  7. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2016
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    120
    Seems easier and less restrictive just to change the hitpoint values for different structures/vehicles. Not to mention that attempting to limit the amount of armour layers could be impossible to implement or could really stifle the creativity in builds if implemented badly.
     
    #7
  8. Frankyln

    Frankyln Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    1,444
    I disagree the current unlimited armor layers promotes only one viable ship the death cube.
    Limited layers promotes design/style as a viable option.
    It also reduces mass And block count of armor. It reduced the perpetual escalation of weapons vs armor vs weapon cycle. It may promote specialized armors.
    Do I add plasma resisting armor or kenetic reinforcement. Checkout layered armor without layers

    Merely changing the hp does nothing.
    Unlimited armor means unlimited hp and non balanceable weapons.
    By limiting armor you can now properly adjust weapons and ammo because you have a max value to work with. You can determine the average death rate of ships. This can be adjusted by increasing weapon/ammo or increasing hp values.

    ----

    I do agree in may be hard to impliment but that's not yours or my call to make.
     
    #8
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2017
  9. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2016
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    120
    limiting hull blocks to 1 or 2 layers won't really change a death cube much. they'll just make it slighly bigger and then wrap it in layers of interior blocks with dead space inbetween to absorb damage before it reach's anything important be that hull wrapped in interior and interior wrapped by hull.

    Death cubes are a symptom of optimization in a creative enviroment by the very nature of the way this game works there will probably never be anything that is more efficient. Everything so far that has beaten the idea of a death cube has usually used another exploit in the game mechanics. Stick ships that put the core far away to mess with the targeting, ships with holes in the middle that mess with the targeting etc.

    The problem with limiting armour is it will also limit design as well. You wouldn't waste an armoured block on a thin slope and you wouldn't add mass that is not placed efficiently to make your ship pretty. So once again a stick ship or a death cube wrapped with as much interior block as your RCS can handle is your most efficient option.

    Changing the block hp is not a fix all but it means that bases are harder to kill which i think is needed and ship are limited in weight by the RCS's diminishing returns so they can only be so large while maintaining the needed manouverability to fight. There is balance of a kind to be found there though I agree other things need to be changed and balanced as well.
     
    #9
    Mortlath likes this.
  10. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    1,753
    If you want to limit armor, just increase the mass of armor blocks (the current density is ridiculously low anyway). If the progression was 2 tons, 5 tons, 20 tons for L Steel, L Hardened Steel, and Combat Steel, I guarantee players would be using less armor (they'd be complaining about needing massive engines and that their ships were sucking fuel, but that's to be expected).

    I also agree that the lack of a repair-to-blueprint really discourages the use of CVs in combat.

    I'm also very much in favor of BA anti-CV cannons, SV/HV anti-CV/BA torpedoes, and CV spinal-mount weapons. All of these weapons would be large and massive, and would tend to be used in more specialized builds. I don't think hard counters are necessary, though; just give the players all of these tools, and the results should be very interesting.
     
    #10
  11. GTv

    GTv Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2017
    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    530
    The advantage a base has is that it can be underground, under a mountain, or underwater. A cv is more powerful but less defensible using terrain.
     
    #11
  12. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2016
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    120
    A CV can also run away but once a base is found it doesn't really matter how defensible the terrain is it'll be unearthed and destroyed with ease unless you can muster a comparative force to the one attacking.
     
    #12
  13. GTv

    GTv Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2017
    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    530
    That's when you launch your CV. No one said if you have a base you can't have ships as well. It's not an 'either or' proposition.
     
    #13
  14. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2016
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    120
     
    #14
  15. GTv

    GTv Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2017
    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    530
    I believe that is always the case in battle. You need superior numbers or superior tactics or superior weapons or a combination thereof.
    I wouldn't like there to be a known outcome before the battle starts, ei any base will always defeat any ship or vice versa. That is not fun gameplay.
     
    #15
  16. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2016
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    120
    All fair points. the only problem is that my cheap piece of rubbish "getting about" SV can take out a base pretty easy unless the people (if any) can launch something to mount a defense.

    Now its fair to say any base shouldn't always defeat any ship but the same should work the other way. Any ship shouldn't be able to always defeat any base.
     
    #16
    TNTBOY479 likes this.
  17. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    1,753
    Ton for ton, a BA should have more armor and more weapons than an equivalent CV since it doesn't need thrusters. If inventory mass is factored in, the CV comes out even worse, especially in a prolonged engagement. The CV is somewhat mobile, true, but unless it's much larger than the base or it can quickly flatten the base's defenses, it's not going to go well for the CV.

    This probably indicates that either BA turrets don't hit hard enough or their projectiles don't travel fast enough.
     
    #17
    TNTBOY479 likes this.
  18. Nogitsune

    Nogitsune Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2017
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    145
    About armor weight increase - no. You would restrict the armor with mechanism that would severely punish all creations, not just the ones that are ridiculously 'optimized'. ALL ships would now require more thrusters, and eat more fuel (and the increase would need to be ludicrous to affect space travel.. effectively restricting most CVs to space only). Also with that kind of exponential increase, no one would use combat steel because you'd get equal amount of health with less weight from multiple layers of weaker blocks.

    If you wanted that kind of counter, you'd have to make the penalty exponential within the blocks themselves somehow - technically, making each armor block weigh say, 1.001 times the previous one. You wouldn't even see it at low numbers, but after 2000 armor blocks you'd be already in 7x the weight, and it'd keep going up.

    Logically this solution wouldn't make any sense - so you'd have to implement it in a more sensible way. Something like... uh... introduce an SI field that you have to feed exponentially increasing power as the ship weigh goes up - any time the ship is moving, the counter the g-forces trying to tear it apart, or something like that.. or just needing increasing amount of some kind of superstructure blocks as the ship mass grows - and those blocks themselves could have significant weight - so you'd be slowly going towards situation where you needed more and more structure blocks to handle the weight of the structure blocks themselves.. and eventually the ship would collapse under it's own weight.

    And yes, I kind of agree making specialized builds viable instead of hard R-P-S would be more interesting, although more difficult to balance - since you'd have to find some kind of reasonable equilibrium on the 'multi-role' ships. There's technically only three 'classes': BA, CV and HV/SV. If you allow type-specific weapons, you only need specialized weapons for 3 types to cover everything. I suppose the problem might take care of itself if we still maintain the max weapon limit, and make the specialized weapons a single 'weapon type'. So f.ex. you can have 6 specialized weapons, so either 6x anti-BA weapons, or 2x anti-CV + 2x anti-BA + 2x anti-SV/HV. A base could perhaps have access to roughly 2x more powerful versions of these weapons, to counter the fact that it can't pick and choose what to use for defense while you can pick and choose which ship (and thus configuration) you use to attack the base... and those weapons could weigh say, 3x more than the CV equals - which would make it logical, and the BA doesn't need to care too much.

    Enter: the real lasers? Beams that travel instantly, instead of shooting pretty glowing particle projectiles (a.k.a. star wars lasers). They wouldn't hit particularily hard, or could even be unable to affect the combat steel, but would track fast, and be serious PITA for SV/HV. Classified as 'specialized' weapons. Probably also works as mean anti-troops weapons, and take care of hunting meat for the base. >.>

    These beams could possibly be pure energy weapons - running on somewhat reasonable amount of power only, making them kind of a counter against ammo-drain attacks. Fast enough to be impossible to dodge, maybe smart enough to only fire when they know they will hit (maintain low power 'tracking beam', and send a pulse of damaging beam - or just continuous high-intensity beam - when they catch target), and always taking a toll on any SV/HV that tries to deplete munitions.
     
    #18
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2017
    geostar1024 likes this.
  19. Kieve

    Kieve Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2016
    Messages:
    1,163
    Likes Received:
    3,020
    The logic is sound, it's just the values that might need some tweaking. But that's what "balance" is all about, is it not? Finding the sweet spot.
    Armor should be heavier, and the idea that players need to choose between thrust (speed) and armor is a basic fundamental idea of countless games - tough tank or glass cannon, slow and durable or fast and nimble.
    The real catch to this logic is, thrust values are also heavily out of whack and it'd take some combined tweaking across the board - block weights, thrust, energy consumption - to reach a sensible balance. Of course, such balancing will also have a profound effect on existing published BPs, so you can imagine the screaming and gnashing of teeth on that count already, I'm sure.

    ...Then you start adding the potential for energy shields down the line, better CV physics (they tried the RCS balance once already, hopefully next time they'll get it right), and other mechanics we don't yet have in-game... the balancing phase for EGS is going to be popcorn-worthy, I'm sure.
     
    #19
    Fractalite and geostar1024 like this.
  20. Gawain

    Gawain Commander

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    99
    I see your point but honestly I thing the solution is as simple as range. Death from above is only restricted by turret vantage and range. If BAs were granted superior range it would change the dynamic of stationary hovering CV pounding down to a core. Right now it is a fish in a barrel scenario where a CV can fire on a base and the base can not return fire. However if every gun on a base exceeded the max range of the arty on a CV than the CV would have to utilize the its mobility.

    Allowing turrets to point strait up or nearly strait up would also greatly affect the system. This is a space game, there are more enemies in the sky than on the ground. As it is we have to divide our guns to cover all three firing axis based on turret vantages. For a survival space game this is highly inefficient. Most of the medium Turrets on a 1940 Battle ship can point nearly strait up. The only reason the larger turrets do not is because they were not fighting CVs in the 1940s. Modern Vulcan and other mini guns can point at their mounting surface. I watched them playing around with the articulation of several such guns on a destroyer. It can literately shot through the armor of the ship if they override the firing limiter.

    Not that they would want to but the point is we live in a 3d world. Limited turret angle is normally restricted to things that have the ability to adjust based on movement, or their intention is to oppose ground forces. For example I have never seen a flax cannon that could not point up.

    BA specific weapons may be nice but honestly Range and articulation would fix the problem. BA Mini = max ammo travel distance. Aside from blocking buildings or vantage points, at any point when a player can do damage to a turret the turret on the base needs to be able to lock on return fire.
     
    #20
    vxsote and Mortlath like this.

Share This Page